PZ Meyers has gone so far beyond stupid douchebaggery now that I need a label which explicitly excludes him from polite society.

I am calling the new movement "Post Atheism" and it's mantra is, "Fallwell has been dead for quite a while now, Dover school board lost, The Discovery Institute authors can't sell enough books to fill a wagon any more, religion makes people do stupid things, so does atheism."*

Yeesh. The cult members in the fanboi club over there are embarrassments to humanity.

Pharyngula, is Uncommon Descent. PZ is Dembski.

Fucking A.

Sickening really.

*Edited to add discovery institute bit and to add that PZ has become dembski.

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

PZ Meyers has gone so far beyond stupid douchebaggery now that I need a label which explicitly excludes him from polite society.

I am calling the new movement "Post Atheism" and it's mantra is, "Fallwell has been dead for quite a while now, Dover school board lost, The Discovery Institute authors can't sell enough books to fill a wagon any more, religion makes people do stupid things, so does atheism."*

Yeesh. The cult members in the fanboi club over there are embarrassments to humanity.

Pharyngula, is Uncommon Descent. PZ is Dembski.

Fucking A.

Sickening really.

*Edited to add discovery institute bit and to add that PZ has become dembski.

Fanaticism is bad... even when you agree with them.

I (and I think everyone here) has commented on this before.

Heck, I sent PZ a personal note about the fanaticism of his followers and the little cult he's developing. In the end, it will be as bad as fundie religions.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Give me a friggin' break. PZ said he won't accept GelatoGuy's apology, and he won't buy the dude's ice cream on those rare occasions when he's in the same town.And that, in your mind, is "so far beyond stupid douchebaggery now that I need a label which explicitly excludes him from polite society"?Give.Me.A.Friggin'.Break.

Heck, I sent PZ a personal note about the fanaticism of his followers and the little cult he's developing. In the end, it will be as bad as fundie religions.

I have been basically turned off by pharyngula for a couple of years. An occasional story is good enough to read but the comments have been positively disturbing for a long time.

This time I felt that the corner has been thoroughly turned. This is now fundamentalist atheism and it would be nice to have a label which allows that the world has changed and another ism has slipped into the annals of past-tense.

Post-atheism. A label which acknowledges the theist-atheist fight is no longer relevant. Now there is only information.

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."

(shrug) Sheer sophistry.

Jello Biafra got knee-capped by what he called "punk fundamentalists", for daring to question aspects of the movement / lifestyle / hairstyle / whateverthefuckpunkisorwassupposedtobe.

There are "fundamentals" that hard-core whatevers subscribe to. Just because zealous Christian literalists were tagged with it doesn't mean no-one else can be.

Apatheism rules. Or not. Whatever.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

So because PZ and many commenters at Pharyngula are {insert series of adjectives of choice here} therefore the issues which face non-religious people in predominantly religious countries are old hat and gone?

Are we in a post-sexist society? A post-racist one? A post homophobic one? I don't think so.

I would love to be a post-atheist person, unfortunately I'm not sure that luxury is available to me yet, or if it ever will be, despite my disillusionment with a variety of things both within and without the atheist "community".

That said, it is, however, with the usual resigned sadness I see the usual pointless straw men being erected here. As per usual and from the usual quarters. Is there any hope the actual points being made could be engaged for once in this endless (and utterly vacuous) wrangle?

What's the point of your Post Atheist movement, BWE? I might be persuaded to sign on, depending on what it is and what it's intended to do. At present, all I can make out is that it's just a "no Pharynguloids allowed" club, and if I'm right about that, please count me out. But if I'm wrong about your Post Atheism movement, could'ja please clue me in on what its actual goals & etc are?

From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."

(shrug) Sheer sophistry.

Jello Biafra got knee-capped by what he called "punk fundamentalists", for daring to question aspects of the movement / lifestyle / hairstyle / whateverthefuckpunkisorwassupposedtobe.

There are "fundamentals" that hard-core whatevers subscribe to. Just because zealous Christian literalists were tagged with it doesn't mean no-one else can be.

Apatheism rules. Or not. Whatever.

I disagree with this.

Words are important, it's not merely sophistry to reject the labelling of one thing as another, different thing because of some superficial similarity or other. Clarity, or at least the attempt at it, is important.

While I have no doubt that there are unpleasant {insert further negative adjectives here} atheists, who do {insert series of nasty or tactically disagreeable things here}, I always want to ask the question HOW are they "fundamentalists"? The word means something, it has more to it than a simple sequence of unpleasant traits associated with genuine fundamentalists. I've yet to receive a coherent answer to the question.

To be frank, I think it's merely used to sate the desire to be insulting on the part of people who don't like what the so labelled "fundamentalist atheists" are doing. Incidentally, I think the term "accomodationist" is the same deal.

The subtle use of language to damn one's opponents has a long and well established history and that is precisely what is occurring in the "accomodationist" vs "gnu atheist" pseudo-debate......oh sorry, you all do know it's not a genuine debate right? A false dichotomy. You do know it's basically solved by one phrase: Let a thousand flowers bloom. Pluralism wins here, as it so often does in complex situations like this.

1) Colin McGinn beat you all to the idea of "Post Atheism". He, like me, thinks the issue of "atheism" (i.e. the non existence of god or gods) is done. There's no evidence for deities we can move on philosophically. It's as intellectually dull as ditchwater. So catch up everyone!

What is interesting, and what is still live, is how theism and theistic privilege is manifested in various societies. Increasing the secular nature of societies so people of all faiths and none can have equal access and opportunity on the basis of their faith (or none) is a live issue, and one I care about. When one's religion or lack thereof is as irrelevant to any specific decision outside of its sphere of influence (say, getting a job etc) as one's eye colour, then the job will be done. It isn't even here in largely secular Europe, so that issue is still live.

The issue here is not with ATHEISM it's with the nature of other people ACTIVISM. BWE and others don't like it and want to marginalise it, fine, but expect to be argued with. That's the extent of the pushback you'll get...well apart from a little mockery of course. No fire bombs, no planes into buildings, no quoting from a series of scriptures deemed inerrant, you'll be argued with. Period.

So when the word "fundamentalist" is so liberally chucked around when complaining about the (real?) excesses of someone else's language/tone how about you...ahahaha...pluck the ironically placed beam from your own eye before examining the mote in that of someone else?

Fuck me, never thought THAT would come in handy on another non-theist!

2) I'm going to make an analogy, and just to be clear it is an analogy of PRINCIPLE not one of EXTENT. So keep your straw men to yourselves thanks, I've heard them before.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

Of course, to again stave off the inevitable, a rashly constructed sign in a window is not equivalent in EXTENT to the centuries of violence and oppression suffered by black people. This is obvious to anyone with the intellectual gifts of a house plant so spare me red herrings derived there of.

It is however an illustration, a tiny, insignificant one to be frank, almost beyond mentioning, of an equivalent PRINCIPLE. So whilst *I* personally could not give less of a shit about the huge hand wringing over some non entity gelato vendor in a pointless bit of some insignificant former colony of a proper country, I'm happy to let those interested in it wring their hands and jump up and down.* I'll concentrate on things more important to me thanks, other than, of course, noting this is yet another tiny thread in a very ugly rug.

There's a wealth of religious privilege out there to be challenged, from the unbridled, unearned access to the halls of power, be they lobbyists in the USA or bishops in the House of Lords, to the tax breaks given to churches. I'll campaign for a secular society where individuals of all religions and non have equal access to services and opportunities, where governments don't preferentially laud one religious viewpoint over another, or worse, over the facts.

Louis

*Oh so YOU are the only people who are allowed to mock pathetically overblown outrage? No no my friends, as you mock, so shall you be mocked.

ETA: Consider the parallel sign: People from the Million Man March are NOT welcomed to my White business

What's the point of your Post Atheist movement, BWE? I might be persuaded to sign on, depending on what it is and what it's intended to do. At present, all I can make out is that it's just a "no Pharynguloids allowed" club, and if I'm right about that, please count me out. But if I'm wrong about your Post Atheism movement, could'ja please clue me in on what its actual goals & etc are?

I wouldn't worry about it. Pharyngula comments are deliberately harsh and frequently overblown, and PZ's style isn't for everyone. It's not always for me but I seem to lack the butthurt for some reason. There seems to be a great deal of butthurt across the webs and thus {jazz hands} DRAHMAH!!!!!!

I can't say it bothers or affects me much to be honest. Like any blog or paper or thing I read, what goes on at Pharyngula is read, understanding is attempted, where understanding is gained I argue/agree as appropriate, where understanding is not gained I question, and where agreement or dialogue is impossible I discard.

Of course if any specific individual is going to make a spectacular arse of themselves by acting as if they are impenetrable to reason, then I'll take the chronic piss out of them, or ignore them as is appropriate.

Some people just don't like PZ's profile, some don't like having their sexism exposed, some don't like their woolly thinking exposed, some don't like the rag tag bunch of virulent commenters there, some {gasp} ACTUALLY GENUINELY DISAGREE FOR VALID REASONS!!! I know, it's amazing right?

I'm happy to exist in the latter category on many issues, and I've previously been in every one of the former categories I mentioned. I just can't be bothered with the butthurt and {jazzhands} DRAHMAH!!!!!! What interests me is the argument, the reason, the evidence, the underpinnings of it all. And there seems precious little of it about, more noise than signal on this issue as usual.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

Of course, to again stave off the inevitable, a rashly constructed sign in a window is not equivalent in EXTENT to the centuries of violence and oppression suffered by black people.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

Of course, to again stave off the inevitable, a rashly constructed sign in a window is not equivalent in EXTENT to the centuries of violence and oppression suffered by black people.

So just like those uppity women you don't like expressing feminism that questions your privilege and upsetting the applecart, you equate people using an (admittedly trivial) example of theistic privilege to illustrate a (vastly more serious) point of principle to a child throwing a tantrum?

Hmmm. Tell me Carlson, is there any discriminatory status quo you don't support, or confrontation of it you wont run away from? I wonder what your views on those vocal gays and terrible blacks who dare to act like proper people are.

Too harsh? I'm beginning to think not. You are consistently on the side of shutting people with legitimate complaints up, simply because you don't like how those complaints are expressed or over what specific incidents.

I rather think it's you and your shallow chums who need the Waaaaahmbulance called. After all, do you have ANY argument, any at all, that doesn't simply dissolve to either a complaint that people at Pharyngula are mean or you don't like their style? *I* think they're mean, *I* frequently dislike their style and I realise that this is insignificant and not a useful criticism. Even BWE's original (and subsequent) comment contains no argument. So who's the baby? This is yet another instance of "WAH PHARYNGULA, WAH PZ". Great! "WAH" all you like, but without argument how far does that get us?

Oh wait, let me guess, *I'm* the bad guy for asking for substance from you and not faltering in the face of confrontation.

Read what PZ has actually written and engage with it. The possibility exists that he is wrong, but that possibility is exposed by dealing with his arguments, not with arrogant and evidence free dismissals and assertions.

Louis

ETA: Given that you a) ignored my argument, b) simply responded to a serious point with a YouTube video, forgive me if I doubt your capacity for rational, considered response.

From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."

(shrug) Sheer sophistry.

Jello Biafra got knee-capped by what he called "punk fundamentalists", for daring to question aspects of the movement / lifestyle / hairstyle / whateverthefuckpunkisorwassupposedtobe.

There are "fundamentals" that hard-core whatevers subscribe to. Just because zealous Christian literalists were tagged with it doesn't mean no-one else can be.

Apatheism rules. Or not. Whatever.

I disagree with this.

Words are important, it's not merely sophistry to reject the labelling of one thing as another, different thing because of some superficial similarity or other. Clarity, or at least the attempt at it, is important.

While I have no doubt that there are unpleasant {insert further negative adjectives here} atheists, who do {insert series of nasty or tactically disagreeable things here}, I always want to ask the question HOW are they "fundamentalists"? The word means something, it has more to it than a simple sequence of unpleasant traits associated with genuine fundamentalists. I've yet to receive a coherent answer to the question.

To be frank, I think it's merely used to sate the desire to be insulting on the part of people who don't like what the so labelled "fundamentalist atheists" are doing. Incidentally, I think the term "accomodationist" is the same deal.

The subtle use of language to damn one's opponents has a long and well established history and that is precisely what is occurring in the "accomodationist" vs "gnu atheist" pseudo-debate......oh sorry, you all do know it's not a genuine debate right? A false dichotomy. You do know it's basically solved by one phrase: Let a thousand flowers bloom. Pluralism wins here, as it so often does in complex situations like this.

Louis

Greta's saying the word "fundamentalist" can only be applied to Christians. I disagree. I think that restriction is completely arbitrary. Look what happened to "chauvinist". YMMV.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

So just like those uppity women you don't like expressing feminism that questions your privilege and upsetting the applecart, you equate people using an (admittedly trivial) example of theistic privilege to illustrate a (vastly more serious) point of principle to a child throwing a tantrum?

See here is the thing. What could have possibly led you to equate my point of disgust with a particular person into a entire political position? Do you have any actual, you know, evidence that I am a mysogynistic trogolodyte or are you just assuming that, because I dislike one aspect of PZs schtick that I somehow reject all of his opinions? I either agree with him 100% or I am a rape apologist, amiright?

Quote

Hmmm. Tell me Carlson, is there any discriminatory status quo you don't support, or confrontation of it you wont run away from? I wonder what your views on those vocal gays and terrible blacks who dare to act like proper people are.

Ahh, so now I am also a homophobe and a racist? You claim to be a scientist, do you have any actual, you know, evidence of this? Or are you just building further assumptions on top of what you assume is my manifest misogyny?

I am either completely with you or completely agin you. You want to see the fundamentalism being referred to? Look in the fucking mirror. In fact, let me hold a mirror up for you.

Quote

Too harsh? I'm beginning to think not. You are consistently on the side of shutting people with legitimate complaints up, simply because you don't like how those complaints are expressed or over what specific incidents.

Oh, I wouldn't dream of shutting PZ, or you, up. Here is a microphone, knock yourself out. Just don't expect me to do anything other than point and laugh at your tiny little balled up fists of rage.

Quote

I rather think it's you and your shallow chums who need the Waaaaahmbulance called. After all, do you have ANY argument, any at all, that doesn't simply dissolve to either a complaint that people at Pharyngula are mean or you don't like their style?

My issue is simple. This:

is not not in the same ballpark as this:

...[it] ain't the same fucking ball park. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same fucking sport.

Quote

Oh wait, let me guess, *I'm* the bad guy for asking for substance from you and not faltering in the face of confrontation.

Oh, heavens no. You aren't a bad guy, you are a hero of the fucking cause. You have given a handful of discussion board participants a sound thrashing. Now run along and get your martyr merit badge. You have certainly earned it. I am quite sure the rest of the College of Cardinals Order of Molly will forgive your earlier heresy about letting a thousand flowers bloom.

You may think you are smart and perceptive, Louis. And I am sure within your real life sphere of activity, you are.* But, I am here to tell you that you overestimate yourself. You aren't smart enough to have figured out how to monetize your anger. Nor perceptive enough to see that PZ has.

When Gelato Guy prostrated himself publicly to apologize (and no doubt earning the righteous** anger of many of his Christian brethren), PZ was presented with a teachable moment. Instead of addressing the person that actually reached out to him, he turned and played to the crowd.

I mean if all y'all want to tap into your collective id, have at it? I am sure it is cathartic. But don't expect anyone but the True Believers ™ to enjoy the shower.

* You are probably also handsome and kind enough to buy the sheep dinner first.**For sufficiently small values of right.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

1) As mentioned before, no I don't think you're a misogynist or a sexist or a rape apologist, no more than I am. Same goes for racist or homophobe or anything else. But I got your attention didn't I?

But you are a shitty ally. Does that make you my enemy? No of course not, READ THE FUCKING QUOTE FROM MLK! Being a shitty ally makes you a shitty ally. I'm the one mentioning the shades of grey here. So keep your mirror. Oh and get some substance.

The evidence I have of your shitty ally status is this: your own words. You frequently (and are doing so again here) mock people with legitimate complaints against the discriminatory status quo. I'm not outraged at the gelato guy's sign (nice straw man), I'm outraged that any such thing is apologised for in a civil society. Are you so soaked in apologising for oppression that you cannot see this tiny insignificant incident is a part of a greater pattern?

Are you a misogynist, racist homophobe? No idea, but you spend more effort fighting people challenging the REAL bigots than you do fighting those bigots. So whilst you might claim not to be agin me, are you FOR me? The shades of grey here are not all equal.

So LEARN Carlson. You are the one attributing PZ's positions to me when I've already mentioned umpteen times they're not, but SOME of those positions have SOME merit. Your "but they are all going WAAAAH" is not a disagreement with any of those positions, it's your own "WAAAAH". Where's the substance, Carlson?

Don't agree with PZ, please don't agree with PZ, there is much *I* don't agree with PZ about, but make a substantial disagreement. Your disagreements don't seem to be very substantial, and you've used yet another post to avoid that substance.

Louis

P.S. I don't claim to be a scientist, I am one. Don't lecture me on stuff above your pay grade.

1) As mentioned before, no I don't think you're a misogynist or a sexist or a rape apologist, no more than I am. Same goes for racist or homophobe or anything else. But I got your attention didn't I?

And what did I do, young padawan? I got back in your face and, apparently, didn't meet a level of discourse worthy of your consideration. See how that works?

Quote

The evidence I have of your shitty ally status is this: your own words. You frequently (and are doing so again here) mock people with legitimate complaints against the discriminatory status quo.

Mocking people's behavior is not the same as mocking their complaint. But, I wouldn't expect anyone invested in their own victim-hood to see the difference.

Quote

Are you so soaked in apologising for oppression that you cannot see this tiny insignificant incident is a part of a greater pattern?

I didn't apologize for oppression. Or is this another case of you sorta, not really calling me names?

At what point will PZ deign to partake in GG tasty comestibles? Since one apology apparently enough, how many is? 2? 10? 150 million? Or was it a question of insufficient sincerity? What are the units of measure on that, Mr. Science?

Quote

Your disagreements don't seem to be very substantial, and you've used yet another post to avoid that substance.

I've left plenty of clues there for anyone not invested in reading it literally to understand my point.

A thousand flowers? Indeed.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

...[it] ain't the same fucking ball park. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same fucking sport.

Quote

Oh wait, let me guess, *I'm* the bad guy for asking for substance from you and not faltering in the face of confrontation.

Oh, heavens no. You aren't a bad guy, you are a hero of the fucking cause. You have given a handful of discussion board participants a sound thrashing. Now run along and get your martyr merit badge. You have certainly earned it. I am quite sure the rest of the College of Cardinals Order of Molly will forgive your earlier heresy about letting a thousand flowers bloom.

You may think you are smart and perceptive, Louis. And I am sure within your real life sphere of activity, you are.* But, I am here to tell you that you overestimate yourself. You aren't smart enough to have figured out how to monetize your anger. Nor perceptive enough to see that PZ has.

When Gelato Guy prostrated himself publicly to apologize (and no doubt earning the righteous** anger of many of his Christian brethren), PZ was presented with a teachable moment. Instead of addressing the person that actually reached out to him, he turned and played to the crowd.

This gets a specific response.

1) I didn't ask for or want an Order of Molly award. I'm chuffed people though some shite I spewed onto the web was worth something, but it's meaningless. As I said, it won't change anything. Nor should it. You have more of a problem with it than I do. It is an irrelevance. Perhaps a funny one, an in joke, but an irrelevance.

I disagree with who I disagree with. Period. I'm viciously burning bridges here right this second because I vehemently disagree. And guess what? I'm not sure I care, I'll burn bridges there too (have in the past) because I vehemently disagree with something or someone. Where are my comments asking for back pats on Pharyngula? Erm nowhere. Where are my rallies of support being held aloft by Pharygulite hoardes? No where. The reason I disagree with you is because I disagree with your content free whining about genuine matters of serious principle. You, and people like you are shitty allies. In exactly the manner MLK describes you are as much of a roadblock to a more equitable society as the genuine bigots. Should you be above criticism because you're sort of supposedly maybe on my side about some things? Hell *I'm* not above criticism, why should you get a free pass?

So nice straw man, nice fiction. No dice.

2) PZ probably has monetised his anger. And? Does this mean any specific thing he says is incorrect? You claim I lack perception when you miss the fact that I know but don't care. If PZ makes some bucks stirring ire from some people, great. IF that's what he is doing. Now I think some days it is, some days it isn't. But again, are women's rights somehow unimportant? Is theistic privilege somehow unimportant? No! And yet your complaint is with the medium, the messenger not with the actual substance. You cannot criticise the message so you go after the messenger. Yet more data in favour of the "shitty ally hypothesis".

Substance free again, and a complete red herring.

3) Keyboard warrior does not equal being hosed by the police. You and I agree. I don't think I'm in either category, a fact you repeatedly seem to miss. I make no claim to activism other than the real life stuff I do, and I've yet to be hosed so it's pretty weak sauce. You are arguing with a straw man of your own confection.

Are people not free to discuss things on the net? It isn't me claiming this stuff is activism and mistaking it for important. It isn't. It can lead to important things (see the organisation for the Arab Spring as one example), but it isn't in and of itself important. What motivates me is understanding stuff, one part of that is dialectics, arguing, discussion, dialogue. What pisses me off the most here is the number of voices suppressing dialogue, and YES Pharyngula contains those voices.

So what's the problem with discussing these things? Even passionately? It's a part of the process. Is it the whole process? No of course not, but then no one but you is claiming it is. It's YOUR uncorrectable straw man, you deal with it.

Straw man two!

4) I could not care less about Gelato Guy. The incident itself is pretty laughable. A guy lost his rag at hearing something he didn't like and acted like a moron. Big whoop. He apologised for acting like a moron. Great. Is his apology sincere? No clue. Does he realise the context and extent of what he did? No idea, does it matter?

Read the rest of the post of PZ's, he's barely having a crack at this Gelato Guy, he's merely said he's not accepting his apology. Personally I'm in two minds. I see the principle, but someone who lives by principles alone starves fast. My view is I'd have to know the guy better, and since I never am going to, I'll suspend judgement. The people PZ is having a go at is people like you. People who whatever happens continually apologise for the wrongs of others and try to avoid confrontation. He's having a go at the shitty allies. And good on him! There are far more shitty allies out there than genuine enemies, if even genuine enemies exist. And what PZ does is a valid tactic, it does stir the pot and highlight issues. Is it the only tactic? Nope. Do I always like it? Nope. Demagoguery has its place in the thousand flowers.

5) I have yet to give any message board participants a sound thrashing. I charge by the hour for that anyway.

You are under a series of illusions that I think this {waves hands all around} matters. I don't. Well, I don't think it is all that matters. It has some small value, debate, discussion, dialogue, via ANY medium can change minds, can inform, enlighten. It can shift little Overton Windows. Is it the totality of activism of any kind? Of course it bloody isn't and no one, least of all me has said it does. PZ doesn't think it matters, ask him, you'll get the same answer. What does matter is motivating people to act, organising and acting themselves after the discussions. Nothing can change without that. Would I prefer the arguments, once won, were settled forever? Of course. Would I prefer never to have to revisit the same tired old shite time and again? Of course. But I'll never get the chance, people die, people are born, so the struggle to change things continues. I have no illusions that an isolated message board post with change anything, but an ongoing discussion or series of discussions? This is how we have the Royal Society and every major European learned society. This is how trade unions formed, how political parties formed and operate. From tiny seeds greater things can grow. It's not me mistakes the seed for the tree, it's you.

So what I have from you again is this: a couple of straw men, a red herring and a persistent misunderstanding of someone else's goals and ideas. A misunderstanding that you persist in post-correction. All of this done without argument, done without substance. No reason, no logic, just your own prejudices and caricatures vomited forth onto the screen. Why should anyone take your complaints seriously?

From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."

(shrug) Sheer sophistry.

Jello Biafra got knee-capped by what he called "punk fundamentalists", for daring to question aspects of the movement / lifestyle / hairstyle / whateverthefuckpunkisorwassupposedtobe.

There are "fundamentals" that hard-core whatevers subscribe to. Just because zealous Christian literalists were tagged with it doesn't mean no-one else can be.

Apatheism rules. Or not. Whatever.

I disagree with this.

Words are important, it's not merely sophistry to reject the labelling of one thing as another, different thing because of some superficial similarity or other. Clarity, or at least the attempt at it, is important.

While I have no doubt that there are unpleasant {insert further negative adjectives here} atheists, who do {insert series of nasty or tactically disagreeable things here}, I always want to ask the question HOW are they "fundamentalists"? The word means something, it has more to it than a simple sequence of unpleasant traits associated with genuine fundamentalists. I've yet to receive a coherent answer to the question.

To be frank, I think it's merely used to sate the desire to be insulting on the part of people who don't like what the so labelled "fundamentalist atheists" are doing. Incidentally, I think the term "accomodationist" is the same deal.

The subtle use of language to damn one's opponents has a long and well established history and that is precisely what is occurring in the "accomodationist" vs "gnu atheist" pseudo-debate......oh sorry, you all do know it's not a genuine debate right? A false dichotomy. You do know it's basically solved by one phrase: Let a thousand flowers bloom. Pluralism wins here, as it so often does in complex situations like this.

Louis

Greta's saying the word "fundamentalist" can only be applied to Christians. I disagree. I think that restriction is completely arbitrary. Look what happened to "chauvinist". YMMV.

The word "fundamentalist" refers to someone adhering to the fundamentals of a specific text or set of texts, so it could be a Christian or a Communist. Pick me up a copy of the atheist gospels.

The point she is making is that if people have a legitimate criticism of vocal atheists (and there ARE legitimate criticisms) then simply by falsely equating them with their perceived polar opposite is inaccurate and misleading. It is a poor, and purely rhetorical, label.

The same goes for the accomodationists. That word is a poor, purely rhetorical, label. It is designed to polarise. As is the term "new atheist", especially since the atheism being evinced is identical to that of people born well over 3000 years ago. Not so "new". It's an attempt to discredit without analysis, to avoid the substance and engage only with the tone. It is, in a word, abso-fucking-lutely-arse-quakingly-pathetic whoever does it.

From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."

(shrug) Sheer sophistry.

Jello Biafra got knee-capped by what he called "punk fundamentalists", for daring to question aspects of the movement / lifestyle / hairstyle / whateverthefuckpunkisorwassupposedtobe.

There are "fundamentals" that hard-core whatevers subscribe to. Just because zealous Christian literalists were tagged with it doesn't mean no-one else can be.

Apatheism rules. Or not. Whatever.

I disagree with this.

Words are important, it's not merely sophistry to reject the labelling of one thing as another, different thing because of some superficial similarity or other. Clarity, or at least the attempt at it, is important.

While I have no doubt that there are unpleasant {insert further negative adjectives here} atheists, who do {insert series of nasty or tactically disagreeable things here}, I always want to ask the question HOW are they "fundamentalists"? The word means something, it has more to it than a simple sequence of unpleasant traits associated with genuine fundamentalists. I've yet to receive a coherent answer to the question.

To be frank, I think it's merely used to sate the desire to be insulting on the part of people who don't like what the so labelled "fundamentalist atheists" are doing. Incidentally, I think the term "accomodationist" is the same deal.

The subtle use of language to damn one's opponents has a long and well established history and that is precisely what is occurring in the "accomodationist" vs "gnu atheist" pseudo-debate......oh sorry, you all do know it's not a genuine debate right? A false dichotomy. You do know it's basically solved by one phrase: Let a thousand flowers bloom. Pluralism wins here, as it so often does in complex situations like this.

Louis

Greta's saying the word "fundamentalist" can only be applied to Christians. I disagree. I think that restriction is completely arbitrary. Look what happened to "chauvinist". YMMV.

The word "fundamentalist" refers to someone adhering to the fundamentals of a specific text or set of texts, so it could be a Christian or a Communist. Pick me up a copy of the atheist gospels.

The point she is making is that if people have a legitimate criticism of vocal atheists (and there ARE legitimate criticisms) then simply by falsely equating them with their perceived polar opposite is inaccurate and misleading. It is a poor, and purely rhetorical, label.

The same goes for the accomodationists. That word is a poor, purely rhetorical, label. It is designed to polarise. As is the term "new atheist", especially since the atheism being evinced is identical to that of people born well over 3000 years ago. Not so "new". It's an attempt to discredit without analysis, to avoid the substance and engage only with the tone. It is, in a word, abso-fucking-lutely-arse-quakingly-pathetic whoever does it.

Louis

?

So, it has to be a text, but not necessarily a Christian text.

Like I said, arbitrary.

The OED is descriptive, not prescriptive. People are gonna use words any way they want. I'm not happy with the way the latest generation uses "gay", and I fight it when I can, but there you are.

No letter to The Times from me.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

1) As mentioned before, no I don't think you're a misogynist or a sexist or a rape apologist, no more than I am. Same goes for racist or homophobe or anything else. But I got your attention didn't I?

And what did I do, young padawan? I got back in your face and, apparently, didn't meet a level of discourse worthy of your consideration. See how that works?

Quote

The evidence I have of your shitty ally status is this: your own words. You frequently (and are doing so again here) mock people with legitimate complaints against the discriminatory status quo.

Mocking people's behavior is not the same as mocking their complaint. But, I wouldn't expect anyone invested in their own victim-hood to see the difference.

Quote

Are you so soaked in apologising for oppression that you cannot see this tiny insignificant incident is a part of a greater pattern?

I didn't apologize for oppression. Or is this another case of you sorta, not really calling me names?

At what point will PZ deign to partake in GG tasty comestibles? Since one apology apparently enough, how many is? 2? 10? 150 million? Or was it a question of insufficient sincerity? What are the units of measure on that, Mr. Science?

Quote

Your disagreements don't seem to be very substantial, and you've used yet another post to avoid that substance.

I've left plenty of clues there for anyone not invested in reading it literally to understand my point.

A thousand flowers? Indeed.

Again, no argument offered no substance provided. And I'm not invested in anything, I'm not the one with bundles of straw under my arms hastily erecting figures to bash about.

1) What pity party? Noting that society is unequal and wanting to change that as far as possible is not a pity party. The fact that you think it is is either a) highly indicative of something profoundly unpleasant on your part, or b) yet another manifestation of your inability to link people with what they are actually saying and instead projecting your own horseshit onto them. Aren't you tired from all that straw yet?

And as for calling you names, you seem rather concerned that this is all about you. Awwww does Carlson has his fee-fees hurted? If you waddle like a duck, quack like a duck and walk like a duck, expect to be thought of as rather duckish.

2) You absolutely ARE making an apologetic for oppression (although discussing it in terms of gelato guy's sign seems more than faintly ridiculous, it's such a minor example). I've never said that one must adhere to some party line on how to deal with Gelato Guy, I'm not even sure I agree with PZ although I respect his right as an individual to make his choice (one flower).

I would, most likely, make another choice (another flower), and perhaps you would make another one (yet another flower). I'm content to let those flowers flourish. Must I be silent then? Are you so absolutely intellectually bereft that you think criticism of a choice (specific flower) is oppression of it? Are you so utterly blinded to your own privilege that you think anyone drawing attention to it is oppressing you?

Is PZ not entitled to refuse to accept an apology and avoid a specific business? That's his prerogative as a individual and not binding on me or anyone else. If I found out my local ice cream merchant was a member of the KKK you bet I'd avoid his business. Is there a point of diminishing returns here? Sure. Can we avoid every business which disagrees with some principle or another? Nope! In my case that would be really hard! Hell, my bank has shares in land mine making companies. Do I lobby them to divest themselves of those share? Of course! Do I join my voice to that of Amnesty International in doing so? Of course! Will it do any good....

....erm, probably not. Does this make me ethical or an activist or a mighty warrior? No. I'm as compromised, prejudiced and hypocritical as the next guy. But I'm not in denial about it. It just means I'm trying to act in accordance with my principles with varying degrees of success. Principles I have developed through discussion and debate by the way.

3) Why are you making an apologetic, or rather how are you making it...glad you asked, let's deal with something substantial shall we?

The fact that in the USA, as in other countries and societies, minority groups typically face oppression (often unintended) by the majority is as uncontroversial a fact as possible. I'm hoping you do not find that to be in dispute because if you do I will genuinely question your sanity. Survey after survey reveal that atheists are the least tolerated minority group in the USA. People get attacked (rarely), cars displaying atheist stickers are vandalised, signs advertising atheist groups are vandalised or torn down or prevented from even being put up, people say that an atheist president is beyond the pale, the currency and the Pledge bear the words "Under God" etc. All pretty minor, all pretty insignificant. There are no atheists being raped for being atheists that I know about, there are no atheist slaves, there is no campaign of atheist bashings. So as oppression goes it is pretty weak sauce by compared to other groups. As I said above, the analogy being made is one of PRINCIPLE not EXTENT. An analogy and an argument you have utterly ignored and not engaged. I suspect this is because you cannot engage it.

Instead of acknowledging the facts, however trivial, of this oppression you object to the tone of some people who do acknowledge them. You aren't considering the message, you are considering how the message is delivered. The message is the important part. Look at the King quote above, what you are doing is telling people to act differently, to act against their principles, to act in such a way that does not challenge their oppression at all. You are criticising people for bringing these matters into the light and acknowledging the tension that exists. THAT is an apologetic for oppression.

Again, the EXTENT of this is a distraction when someone is discussing the PRINCIPLE, as I am.

You ignored it before, and doubtless will ignore it again because you clearly lack the self reflection to consider its implications, consider the parallel sign:

People from the Million Man March are NOT welcomed to my White business.

How about:

People from Local Church are NOT welcomed to my Atheist business.

All are equally discriminatory in PRINCIPLE. All need to be challenged on the basis of that PRINCIPLE.

The fact that this is a very minor issue and involves some blog comment drama is irrelevant, you're focussing on the EXTENT (as predicted) not the PRINCIPLE. And since I've acknowledged the EXTENT is not identical, nor am I trying to equate them, your continual straw men about this are rather pathetic.

4) It's Dr Science to you, Ignorant Horse Boy. Get it right.

I could not care less what will take PZ to go back to GG's store. I don't care how many apologies are necessary, it's another fucking red herring. Worse, it's not even coherent.

If your "oh so subtle" point is that "humans are not ratiocinating machines that act all Spock-like" then welcome to something I've never disagreed with! Hence why I favour PLURALISM here too. I am content for you to forgive GG and accept his apology (if you do), and for PZ not to. Neither are "right". However, one is more consistent with a stated principle of trying to achieve a more equitable, secular society and one is less consistent. THAT is possible to investigate by reason, by evidence. Once the axioms, the principles, have been agreed upon, then these systems can be analysed with reason. Rocket surgery this is not.

The pluralism I am also advocating is one of methods of communication and activism. So if you don't like PZ's tone and content, fine, find someone's you do like or produce your own. Don't like the show? Change the channel. Or are you too invested in your pity party, because it ain't ME doing the whining. So yes, absolutely let a thousand flowers bloom, allowing them to bloom does not imply agreement with either medium or message.

5) The tale of history is littered with minority movements standing up to the majority to attempt to grab equality. This is exactly what is happening here. The social majority is Christian, this guy felt entitled to restrict his business (in an admitted moment of madness, apologised for) in such a way as to exclude some segment of non-Christians. That is the epitome of discrimination on the basis of prejudice and majority entitlement. Should someone forgive him for that? Not for me to say, do it, don't do it, I don't care. But again, my point here is that you are not focussing on the incident of prejudicial discrimination (however minor it is) you are focussing on the (perceived) odiousness of the people highlighting it.

THAT is why you are, as I said, a shitty ally. Ignoring the principle at stake and scatter shooting a variety of irrelevant drivel instead is precisely to ignore the problem. It is precisely an apologetic for the oppression. Anything that does not oppose the oppression is effectively an apologetic for it, don't you get that? You are permitting it to exist by your inaction. Guess what, I do the same thing. I am just as shitty an ally, just as much a hypocrite, just as compromised as I have admitted several times now. The difference is you are expending your energy to refuse acknowledging that, I've come to terms with it and am trying to expend my energy to minimising my own shitty-allyness.

But worse than that, the heart of the apologetic for the status quo, is that your targets of criticism are not those people who are the genuine oppressors, but the people you claim to ally with. It's classic "I'm not a [whatever]ist, but...". The first part is denial (you are a [whatever]ist, as is everyone, it's a matter of degree), the second part, the but, is an apologetic. In this instance it is a specific complaint about the foibles of the people drawing attention to the oppression as opposed to the oppressors themselves.

The OED is descriptive, not prescriptive. People are gonna use words any way they want. I'm not happy with the way the latest generation uses "gay", and I fight it when I can, but there you are.

No letter to The Times from me.

It's no more arbitrary than any other word or term.

Once quick thing, Wesley kindly reminded me I erred, in Christianity "fundamentalist" comes more from the adherence to five fundamental principles of Christianity than any specific reading of any text. The literalism/specific readings comes into it, but that's not the biggest or original bit. The same question remains however, what fundamentals are these atheists sticking to? Considering Christians are also atheists, as are Muslims, Jews, Sikhs etc etc etc I think you'll find that the definition needs so much stretching that it breaks.

Anyway, yes language evolves. So? I don't think the distance between "fundamentalist" as "someone who adheres to the fundamentals of X" and "frothing lunatic fanatic nutbar" or whatever is sufficient. Especially, contra "gay", the original meaning is still in majority use. Wesley suggested "Evangelical Atheist" due to the "for the shared property of not being satisfied to leave another party with the same beliefs that they started with". Now that is a bloody good way of phrasing it, even if I would prefer another word to Evangelical. At least it confers the right connotations. It even maintains the rhetorical punch.

One doesn't simply Humpty Dumpty-esque get to define words as one wishes and maintain clarity. Whilst language evolves the use of words with reasonably shared definitions is what permits good communication. What Greta (and I) is saying is that as a descriptor "fundamentalist" is a crap one. It implies, falsely, an equivalence of opposed positions that the middle ground would be preferable to. I.e. that between "fundamentalist religionists" and "fundamentalist atheists" there exists some median point at which the right answer lies. It's false balance.

Consider the phrase "fundamentalist a-Santaists", i.e. fundamentalist people who do not believe in Santa. It's an absurdity. Likewise "fundamentalist atheist". The only reason this isn't considered so is simply because we are swimming through a religiously privileged sea, we are used to accommodating and apologising for religious privilege. And I do mean WE. I do it too. (Just so Carlson doesn't get his fee-fees hurt again, I can do that directly, I don't need hints).

What's the point of your Post Atheist movement, BWE? I might be persuaded to sign on, depending on what it is and what it's intended to do. At present, all I can make out is that it's just a "no Pharynguloids allowed" club, and if I'm right about that, please count me out. But if I'm wrong about your Post Atheism movement, could'ja please clue me in on what its actual goals & etc are?

Yes. You are wrong and i will flesh it out on friday or maybe tonight.

This reply is mostly so i remember to respond directly to this post. And thanks.

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far